Signs of “Pretty Pervasive” Abuse

I don’t even know how to process this. 

More than half the teenage girls taken from a polygamist compound in west Texas have children or are pregnant, state officials said Monday.
A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn’t specify how many are pregnant.

1. Yeah, its funny… I tend to mistrust the government on many levels and I was REALLY keeping an open mind on this one.  Even over the weekend watching the dateline show on the compound, I was ready to think the worst of the authorities…  and I actually felt sympathy for the stories told by the residents of the compound…

   Upon reading that today about all the girls between 14 and 17 who were pregnant or already mothers… Um.. yeah..  i don’t believe a word coming out of any of them anymore.  They can go on the today show or dateline and cry and complain all they want.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2008 at 2246 hrs




2. If my suspicions are correct, the reality could get much, much worse.  I’ve seen some cases similar to what they were describing (on a much smaller number of people).  If the similarities lead where the other cases were, it is about as bad as the imagination allows.

   Posted by capper on April 29, 2008 at 0034 hrs




3. Since the age of consent is 16 in Texas, how many kids were 16 and 17 when they became pregnant?  No, I don’t trust the goverment in this case.  If they break it down by age, then I may be more concerned.
   Now, I don’t want a 16 or 17 year old having babies , of course not, but, apparently that is the law in Texas.  I don’t want them having babies, just as I don’t a girl in the inner city of Milwaukee who is 16 or 17.  Do they remove girls who are under 18 who are pregnant from their parent’s home in Milwaukee County?
   Arrest the abusers, remove the kids, younger than 16 who are in danger, but do it on a case by case basis, not en mass.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0108 hrs




4. It is a different thing when a young girl gets pregnant from her equally young (or close) boyfriend than when these old guys who can afford multiple wives raise them to have babies for them.

   Why are none of the “sires” being questioned? They are obviously the ones in control of the situation and likely the woman are afraid to be truly forthcoming with information.

   What a sweet deal to be the bull on the farm, all the ladies you could want and they really have no choice.

   Another question is why do they push the male offspring away from the compound? These older men are probably forcing the boys to go earn their own while they teach the girls that the outside world is evil and scary so they will cling to them and swear it was by their own choice.

   They were never really given the full list of choices though, were they?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0144 hrs




5. Dan, I think that you are defending the indefensible.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0655 hrs




6. Not only that, but Dan has some of his facts wrong.  The age of consent is seventeen, in Texas.  They can be married, with parental approval, at sixteen.  Not many of these girls were married.

   He also advocates that the other children be exposed to further abuse, not to mention coaching by the parents.  This would hamper any investigations, and further endanger the children.

   Posted by capper on April 29, 2008 at 0719 hrs




7. Yea these people are indefensible.  Period.  These kids (generally) will be messed up for their entire lives.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0821 hrs




8. capper, don’t you think that happens in any other abuse/neglect case, the coaching? 
   Hell, even the ACLU agree with me on this case, along with many prominent civil rights attorneys.  You won’t find that happening too often.
   You don’t think these children are going through so much emotional trauma right now, being yanked from their families, placed in homes that are totally foreign to them?  I still say that the government is doing this because of religous beliefs.  BTW, I find their beliefs to be screwy and repugnent.  My concern is where this will lead to.  Are they going after the Amish next because of their belief system(which the government tried to do along time ago but the government got slapped down), how about Satanists- people say they can be psychologically damaging or any other religion.  Hell, I feel liberalism can be damaging to a child, shall we go after liberals?  Likewise, you liberals probably think conservative are damaging our kids, should you go after us?
   This is much bigger than this ranch in Texas and that is what concerns me.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0821 hrs




9. Sure, daver, these kids are messed up.  Just like the kids in Milwaukee and Vegas.  Should we remove them from their families also?  I’m pretty sure these kids at the ranch don’t do drugs or commit few, if any, crimes.  Do some get abused, probably, and remove those kids and arrest the violaters.
   Question:  if a person, child or adult is involved in a gang, should a kid be removed from their family because of that?  If a parent belongs to a gang, should the kid be automatically removed from that house?  after all, you are exposing that child to a harmful life style.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0828 hrs




10. You are grasping at straws Dan.  All of the evidence suggests the state made the right call in this case. 

    If a child’s welfare is in jeopardy they should be removed from the jeopardizing environment.  It is a pretty simple equation.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0832 hrs




11. But the state may have messed up the whole thing by going in half-cocked with lame warrants. There’s outstanding, in-depth coverage of this story at

    http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com

    There are lots of postings about this ongoing tragedy; you’ll have to scroll down and find them amongst Scott’s excellent reporting on other issues, but this is easily the best reporting you’ll find on this story.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0847 hrs




12. This situation had to be brought under control due to the evidence and testimonies of several people. Each case/situation will be examined, then they will decide on what to do with the minors. The judge & jury will have the final say in what happens to the perpetrators. I read an article about this situation from the perspective of a young woman who left the group.You can’ t underestimate the power of a crazy leader heading up a cult, especially if they’re isolated. Humans are emotional, and, if not careful, will follow any powerful, dynamic-speaking, seemingly righteous leader.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 1037 hrs




13. [biting tongue now]

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 1058 hrs




14. Humans are emotional, and, if not careful, will follow any powerful, dynamic-speaking, seemingly righteous leader.

    Like Obama or Hillary?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 1058 hrs




15. Or Reagan?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 1254 hrs




16. I was going to say “or George W. Bush,” but he’s only got two out of the three traits listed, at best.

    Posted by Emily on April 29, 2008 at 1302 hrs




17. Let’s just agree that partisan candidates of both sides get uproariously funny emo reactions from their lemmings and leave it at that.

    Oh and the way you process this is to advocate that any adult member who fostered this atmosphere (likely all of them) be sent to the permanent penalty box and that the compound be demolished and replaced with a landfill.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 1918 hrs




18. I was going to say “or George W. Bush,” but he’s only got two out of the three traits listed, at best.

    OF COURSE you were.  Thats what all you single minded knee-jerk liberal Bush-Bashers come up with.

    You even admit your proclivity (or compulsion) to blurb “Geroge W” anytime it can be used as a perjorative when you say “but he’s only got two out of the three traits listed, at best. “

    So if he’s only got 2 of the 3 “at best” why in the world is that the first thing that pops into your brain?

    Its just your programmed response isn’t it?

    Or Reagan?

    Powerful, dynamic speaking… Ok, I can buy that…  Seemingly righteous… eh… He ain’t got nothing on Obama and Hillary in that area.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 2016 hrs




19. Why didn’t anybody think of Tom Reynolds first?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 2103 hrs




20. OF COURSE you were.  Thats what all you single minded knee-jerk liberal Bush-Bashers come up with.

    Uh huh. And the next time a Dem is President, you’ll be like totally different. Nothing but respectful disagreement and everything else you expect from the other side.

    Right.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 2150 hrs




21. Actually ATV, I’m a libertarian…..  So I’m not exactly the “other side”  you think I am.

    Having said that, I am of course biased, but I am pretty confident that I make a pretty solid effort to limit my criticisms of politicians to their policies and don’t play the gotcha drive-by games.  I think I’ve even been pretty consistent in that on threads of Dem bashing on this board that I thought were meaningless distractions and perception based mud slinging.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 2213 hrs




22. So xx, are you trying to say that W’s policies aren’t deserving of the opprobrium that’s been given them?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2008 at 0902 hrs




23. OF COURSE you were.  Thats what all you single minded knee-jerk liberal Bush-Bashers come up with.

    I’m a libertarian

    OF COURSE you are.  You libertarians are all single-minded, knee-jerk, no responsibilities to others and one man is an island freaks.

    See how that works?

    I doubt all of that applies to you, but isn’t it fun to have someone insultingly generalize about you, even though they don’t actually know you?  Super.

    I mentioned George W. not because it’s a conditioned response to bring his name up every time I want to insult someone or something, but because I have genuine distaste for him and his administration’s policies, and because I’ve been incredibly disappointed by my fellow human beings who’ve supported him, I feel, rather blindly over the years, despite his many, many shortcomings.

    Personally, the use of oh-so clever nicknames like Dubya or Shrillary or whatever drive me nuts and I make a point not to use them.  You’re right: they’re meaningless distractions.  But criticism of a person based on their leadership abilities, policies and actions is perfectly valid.

    Posted by Emily on April 30, 2008 at 0955 hrs




24. So xx, are you trying to say that W’s policies aren’t deserving of the opprobrium that’s been given them?

    No, you grasping for something to take issue with. 

    I’ve made no commentary on the policies of the current administration.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2008 at 1312 hrs




25. No. I have absolutely no desire to take issue with you on anything, graspingly or otherwise.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2008 at 1637 hrs